Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, as always you, and I guess the members that usually are on the same line when it comes to verbal unrest against the members of other defensive alliances will follow suit, are against this amendment. While your position is understandable, I would like to remind everyone, but specially you, that there was once a time when the European Nuclear Applications Authority was exclusively made up of members of the same alliance. These members fulfilled their tasks exemplarily, and no one in Europe ever complained about the ENAA's composition, or raised suspicions of corruption and biased behaviours.
The thing is, Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, you would love to be there. But the United Duchies has no nukes, in fact its license application was rejected not so long ago. There are no other states that could assume the job as they should: electing Fremet would be the obvious thing, but they are also absent, my country is yet not ready to assume this position because it lacks experience and the same reason comes up when proposing Czech Slavia. The Empire of Inimicus is the only nation, alongside the United Kingdom maybe, that suits this position.
But of course, your recently proposed amendment speaks the truth hidden behind your reasoning: this is not about citizens' trust on the ENAA, about which many likely do not care; this is not about corruption and bias: this is about the cold war you and other members pursue to have in the European Union. By the way Councillor, your amendment undermines the purpose of the ENAA: nuclear nations must be a majority within the organization in order to take expert knowledge into account when taking a license request into consideration.
On the Speaker's proposal, I do believe we also need to do something with Icholasen: maybe the United Kingdom would be a good substitute for Icholasen? That way, we would not need to drop the originary purpose of this amendment, which is dropping non-active member states from the European Nuclear Applications Authority.
The Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk
While I understand the reasons for the original proposal, I feel that, regardless of its engagement in European affairs, Angleter remains too significant and powerful a nuclear state to exclude from the ENAA. There is a need, in my opinion, to back the power of the institution with force; to remove Angleter, in my opinion, undermines that.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
I would propose that the ENAA stays as is. This amendment will only lead to the creation of a permanent majority of one alliance and will eventually lead the ENAA to be an arm of one organisation. Forever tarnishing the ENAA's credibility.
I would like to remind you we have no cold war but its common sense not to give any alliance including ECON a majority on deciding who gets an important defensive technology. We'd prefer there is no nuclear weapons in the world in an ideal world but that is not practical and unfortunately if ones has nukes most need nukes to be on an equal par. You hand a permanent majority to any alliance it could be abused and if it can be abused it is a problem, even the appearance of bias or potential corruption is dangerous enough to undermine trust , you mention the UK maybe that is an ideal candidate, after all it is a nuclear power who have shown they are also pragmatic but they are cruciall not alligned to either ECON or Telum which would help increase trust to the maximum.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe, Councillor for United Duchies
Cllr. Mizrachi-Roscoe, you really need to update yourself a little bit - and go to the doctor, because you seem not to listen correctly. I have not said there is a cold war in Europe, I have instead affirmed that you and some members pursue a Cold War in this region.
Furthermore, the majority and neutrality arguments are a stunt for two basic reasons: first, the European Nuclear Applications Authority members are entitled to be neutral, they were neutral back in the past when they all made part of the same alliance and remain neutral nowadays. Only three nations (the United Duchies, Reitzmag and Yosai, hereafter the skull trio) have ever complained about possible bias and corruption if a nation got the ENAA member status. We all know the members of the skull trio are eager to adquire the condition Inimicus would if the act passed, but none of them have nukes. This is not about Telum Treaty or ECON, this is about you getting a new chair to sit on.
And second, the United Kingdom is a member of the Treaty of Telum, so I guess this is not only a stunt when it comes to the reasons, but also a grudge held against the Empire of Inimicus.
I would also like to submit an amendment, to include the thoughts of Speaker Tilkannas, giving them my own view:
AMENDMENT III
SECTION II. THE MAKEUP OF THE ENAA
The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
a. The Aelir of the Kendro-Laatzenian Dominions of the Duxburian Union
b. The Prime Minister of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter The Emperor of Inimicus
c. The Archbishop of the Most Blessed State of Inquista
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain
The Kingdom of Spain
His Majesty the King, Felipe VI
President Alberto Núñez-Feijóo
Councillor and Council Speaker Donald Tusk
Wouldn't a more impartial and less political structure employ a rotating structure and have presiding members come under review for their candidacy be on a term limit say every year. It's just an idea or concept, having one member as a permanent presiding member. I just think there need to be balance Over a body that handles matters of nuclear arsenals and nuclear energy in general is not a matter to be taken lightly and should not be at the whims of outside organisations
The United Kingdom and its Prime Minister would be honoured. In the knowledge that this body is charged with regulating nuclear energy, we need the expertise of the United Duchies.
Cllr. Tusk, I am willing to support your amendment and withdraw my own on one condition - that in the case of the return of Angleter to active engagement in European Affairs, it is reinstated as a member of the ENAA.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
I accept that condition, Ms. Speaker.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain
Skull trio? Really? Surely you can think of a better name that doesn't make us sound like some garage speed metal band? Well in any case I just don't see any reason to change the ENAA in its current form.
Izumi Miwako
Councilor of the Federal Republic of Yosai
Skull trio is uncalled for. Please disagree with less outwardly hostile terms please.
I withdraw my amendment.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
I propose the following
1.The ENAA shall consist of five members, four of which will be permanent members and one of which will be by majority vote of the council selected by the European Council every 12 months. This single elected member must be a non-nuclear state and will vacate their seat if they obtain nuclear weapons.
3.The nations that will have representation on the ENAA should assign their most powerful political figure to the role.
My only contention is with the word permanent. I think it creates an unnecessary lock on membership of aspiring states further cements the interests of a few states on matters which effect us all. Therefore I proposed that in amendment one that all states that apply should be elected via a majority vote of this council. Why not let democracy decide?
Izumi Miwako
Councilor of the Federal Republic of Yosai
I believe that if we are going to reform the ENAA's membership to keep it updated and in line with the current geopolitical situation I feel the most proper organization would be as follows:
Two permanent members:
Two elected members:
This would obviously create an even number of seats on the board necessitating super majorities but I feel this would if anything be beneficial to the institutions legitimacy. I would like to see how the chamber feels in general about the proposal before moving forward on drafting an amendment to that effect.
Now that is my proposal, let me go on to state why I feel the others brought forward for the most part do not function that well.
Inimicus I believe, especially its Emperor, would be a trustworthy member in the context of the ENAA. However, its geopolitical issues with a variety of members states would unfortunately just hamper the institutions legitimacy through constant attacks from those opposing member-states. It's nothing Inimicus did, its just the logical progression of what would happen if they were to rise up to the position.
Cllr. Roscoe is beyond wrong. Yosai is not capable of handling itself as a member of the ENAA, and would face similar bias issues as Inimicus. Not to mention including it as a permanent member would give non-nuclear states a majority which defeats the purpose of the ENAA.
It is a technical institution. Not a political one. It's job is to examine a state and evaluate whether it is truly trusthworthy of being handed nuclear weapons, and I do not believe they have made an outwardly bad choice thus far in its history. The states with the most technical expertise in whether a state can handle the needed security, technological handling, political restraint in dealing with these weapons of massive destruction are other nuclear states. They have that experience. No one else does. The purpose of the non-nuclear states on the ENAA is to give some legitimacy to the organisation, but it still needs to be a technical institution first and foremost.
Which is why making it a completely "democratic" body is short-sighted. It fails to recognize the purpose of the ENAA and turns it into the biased body that some Cllrs. are so against here of but yet do not mind the potential of making it a biased body if it benefits them.
Those are my thoughts on the subject.
Cllr. Carita Falk
Archrepublic of Vayinaod
I do like this compromise by my colleague Carita Falk. At least there is a chance to not have a permanent majority on issues such as nuclear arsenals. Majorities will come and go, but at least there is not a permanent majority. And while we are flattered to be considered as a worthy candidate by our colleagues from the Duchies, I agree with Councillor Faik, we have no aspirations to join as members of the ENAA in any capacity at this time. What we want is balance and the amendment proposed by the Archrepublic of Vayinaod's representative is at the moment the bast solution to ensure that.
I fully support the compromise by the right honourable councillor Falk . I would endorse that as an amendment and also withdraw my proposed amendment.
James Mizrachi-Roscoe , Councillor for United Duchies
whatever.
Ed Miliband
Debate has ended. Three amendments were proposed, as follows:
AMENDMENT I
SECTION II. THE MAKEUP OF THE ENAA
...
2. The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
a. The Aelir of the Kendro-Laatzenian Dominions of the Duxburian Union
b. The Prime Minister of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter The Emperor of Inimicus The Federal Republic of Yosai
c. The Archbishop of the Most Blessed State of Inquista
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen
AMENDMENT II
SECTION II. THE MAKEUP OF THE ENAA
....
2. The four permanent members of the ENAA are as follows:
a. The Aelir of the Kendro-Laatzenian Dominions of the Duxburian Union
b. The Prime Minister of the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter The Emperor of Inimicus
c. The Archbishop of the Most Blessed State of Inquista
d. The Korojaunu of the United Dominions of Icholasen The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
AMENDMENT III
SECTION II. THE MAKEUP OF THE ENAA
1.The ENAA shall consist of five members, four of which will be permanent members and one of which will be by majority vote of the council selected by the European Council every 12 months. This single elected member must be a non-nuclear state and will vacate their seat if they obtain nuclear weapons.
3.The nations that will have representation on the ENAA should assign their most powerful political figure to the role.
Amendment I contradicts with Amendment II. Voting will begin NOW and will continue until 23:59 GMT on 12 January 2023.
iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
I vote FOR Amendment II and AGAINST Amendments I and III.
Donald Tusk
Councillor for Spain
Representing The State of Elthize, I vote FOR the first and third amendment and ABSTAIN on voting for other amendments.
Liam Zachary
Councillor for The State of Elthize
Cllr. Tusk, I am willing to support your amendment and withdraw my own on one condition - that in the case of the return of Angleter to active engagement in European Affairs, it is reinstated as a member of the ENAA.
Iras Tilkanas
Council Speaker and Councillor for the Republic of Istkalen
